, and whether that might have made a difference in the fifth seat this time around? >> first of all, as i think you're referring to, utah did gain a seat, given its relative growth rate. the procedures used for accounting residents in 2010 with regard to the missionary population were exactly the same as in 2000. those out of the country were not counted as part of the census operation. did i answer your question? >> what i was wondering is what the reason for that was. was that reconsidered for the censored, given all lawsuit sea? >> i have only been in my job

for a year-and-a-half. to my knowledge, there was no serious reconsideration of the accounting procedures were missionaries -- for the shares. had we counted them, their seat allocation would be different? i cannot speak to them because i do not know how many there would be. >> thank you. >> this question from facebook. how we find out the results of minority group counts for each state? >> in the files we will release starting in february, as i said, we will have block level counts. those accounts will be broken down by race and ethnicity groups. from that data, one can derive counts at all levels of aggregation four minority groups and i expect there will

be hundreds of thousands of people doing that. later on we will have more specific reports that will give you those breakdowns directly. >> two more question. in the room and then we will go to the operator. call for a recount sense victims had moved to other states. is that likely to happen and do you support that? >> let me clarify what occurred. visited newy orleans several times because we changed our operations to address the unique circumstances in those parishes. we handled questionnaires and wanted to make sure that we kept up-to-date with the heavily dynamic population, people

moving back, rebuilding, and we wanted to count people as best we can. but we never violated the principle that we can of people where they usually live. i understand that some who are now living in baton rouge or mississippi or a houston think of themselves as new orleans residents, but under the accounting rules we have you since 1790, they must be counted where they now live. that is how we count them. we did attempt to count as accurately as we can through his extraordinary procedures we use in that area. other parts of the gulf coast at the same. >> for our last question, operator. >> philadelphia daily news. >> my question was on certification already.

-- was answered already. >> the idaho falls post register daily. >> withheld being among the past growing states, d.c. that moving out of the north ways and the midwest toward the west or other factors that might have contributed to the bump in population idaho experience? >> we share all the speculation she went through and we cannot wait to dive into this and get more information about the patterns of migration. there are tons of demographer is working on answers to your question. i do not think of any of us know. >> thank you everybody for joining us. you can go to census.gov. this presentation is on the web site as well as materials we're handing out in the room and a transcript of the directors remarks.

you love posted within 24 hours of full transcript. and thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> thursday we will hear more about the 2010 census from the census bureau director robert groves. he will be a guest on "washington journal." that is said 7:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span. every 10 years the results of the u.s. census to size the makeup of the house of

representatives. we spoke to a reporter about the political implications. the new number is 309 million and the u.s.. americans. the headline, the gop-leaning figure began to manifest itself in the house? >> we will start sin texas is the big winner. it is 28 four more seats in the rust belt to the sun belt. house ofgeorgia, south carolina, nevada, they will get more representatives. whereas ohio, the big loser, will lose two seats. as will new york. but throughout the rust belt, iowa, illinois, pennsylvania,

massachusetts, new jersey -- all losing one seat, which means that there is going to be a battle royales breaking out as the state's righe their congressional districts. >> the shift in the population, does it shift political views? are we becoming more conservative? >> no, i do not think that you can make that assertion. a lot of the ships are not just population movements from the north to the south, but it is immigration. why is texas surgeon? there is a huge number of latinos going into their, arizona and nevada the same thing. they're not necessarily bringing with them a conservative outlook. the redistricting gives republicbank legislatures enormous ability to try to shape

the district to make them more conservative. and to look at the patterns of immigration and to make sure that there are not an overwhelming number that might be very hard in a place like texas and florida. democrats believe that some of these districts will be democratic. >> these census numbers translate into house numbers but they do not mean any hurt -- anything in terms of the presidential electoral college. why not? >> under the new apportionment, the president would have gone six last electoral seats in 2008 than he actually got. this does have some of that. but these are effects on the margin. the president can still find a path to victory by reconstructing the map, even if he loses some of the states that have turned back into red states

like virginia, north carolina, illinois, indiana. he can lose the states and still win if he wins ohio, florida, and even without them, because ohio is losing two seats. it is slightly less important. it the can reconstruct the victory he had out west, especially with nevada adding an additional seat, and arizona, not running against john mccain. that will have an additional zero electoral college seat. he could take advantage of this. harry reid one in nevada. you cannot say that it is a red stain. colorado, president obama 1 fore president of the republican adversaries. >> you can read his articles online at at the l>> wednesday on of the washington journal," a look that the 2010 census results and what redistricting could mean in the

2012 election. our guest is david wasserman. we're lazar of the heritage foundation stops by. he will address u.s. companies leading mexico because of increased violence and the drug cartels. later, a discussion on the start nuclear arms treaty. the author of "bonds. " gives us another state. "washington journal: " take your callsndrning starting at 7:00 a. eastern here on c-span. wednesday, president obama signs the repeal of the 17 year-old of don't ask, don't tell policy on gays and lesbians in the military. you can see the signing ceremony from the interior department wednesday at 9:15 a.m. eastern on are contained in that were, c-span3. chichen listen to historic supreme court decisions on c-

span ready. saturday, the constitutionality of christmas decorations on public property. to do the nativity scene is one of the most powerful religious symbols in this country, the most powerful religious -- christian symbols in this country. >> listen nationwide on xm channel 132, an online. >> the fcc released new rules for internet providers and content distribution practices. bailey hutchison made remarks about the new regulations. this is 15 minutes. >> later today, access informatn concerned. the internet has transformed our on the internet. society, our economy and the very way we communicate with

others. it served as a remarkable platform for innovation at the end of t 20th century and now at the beginning of the 21st century. and all of this has been made possible because people have been free to create and innovate to push the limits of invention free from government involvement. now that could soon change. today thebama administration, which has already natio lzens, d with what could be the first step in controlling how americans use the internet by establishing federal regulations on its use. this would harm investment, stifle innovation and lead to job losses. that's why i along witheveral of my colleagues have urged the f.c.c. chairman to abandon this flawed abapproach. the internet is an invaluable resource and should be left alone. many americans will wonder as

many already do if this is a trojan horse for further meddling by the government. fortunately we'll have an opportunity in the new congress to push back against newecause s so timely, because today the federal communications commission voted 3-2 to impose new regulations on the internet. this is an unprecedented power grab by the unelected members of the federal communications commission, spearheaded by its chairman. the f.c.c. is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the internet through without congressional authority. these actions threaten the very future of this incredible technology. the f.c.c. pursuit of net neutrality regulations involves claiming authority under the communications act that they do not have. congress did not provide the

f.c.c. authority to regulate how internet service providers manage their networks, not anywhere in the communications act nor any other statute administered by the commission. adopting and imposing net neutrality regulations is in effect legislating. it takes away the appropriate role of congress in determining the proper regulatory framework for the fastest growing sector of our economy. the real-world impact of the announced intention of the f.c.c. today is that it will be litigated, it will take 18 months to two years to sort through the briefings and the court decisions, and it will probably go to the supreme court of the united states. in the meantime, capital investment will slow in core communications networks, and i cannot think of a worse possible

time for that as we attempt to create jobs to fuel a recovery from the most significant recession in years. elected representatives should determine if regulation is necessary in this area. hearings would bring opposing parties to the table. the process would be and unaccountable group of regulators are creating authority to intervene in an area that represents 1/6 of the nation's economy. i want to go through a few of the specific provisions in this f.c.c. order. the first one is an order to require broadband providers like comcast and at&t to allow subscribers to send and receive any lawful internet traffic, to go where they want, to say what they want, to use any nonharmful online devices or applications

they want to use. now, this is not bad. these principles are widely supported. i don't object. neither would probably anyone. however, these principles are already in use. we don't need a big regulatory intervention to accomplish these principles, and it is the rest of the order that is diametrically opposed to this statement of openness and freedom. it installs a government arbiter to force their idea of freedom on the users of the internet and the companies that are trying to make the internet the economic engine o america. the first provision that deals with this is that networks must be transparent. it says that networks must be transparent about how they manage their networks, i.e.,

decisions about engineering, routeing, degrading service. transparency requirements usually translate to reporting and consumer disclosure requirements that are heavily proscribed and hard to comply with. disclosure of proprietary information affecting competition. the real-world impact of this is higher costs to consumers. the commission will increase regulatory reporting and consumer disclosure requirements as a result of this provision, and the costs will be passed along to, of course, the consumers in the form of more expensive services. the second provision is that you may not unreasonably discriminate. the f providers may not unreasonably discriminate against lawful internet traffic. that sounds fine, but the devil is in the details. the term is vaguely defined in

the order, and how the f.c.c. interprets and enforces what is reasonable will determine how limiting this restriction is. for instance, if a provider notices that a small number of users are sharing huge file dumps that are leading to congestion on the network and determines that slowing down those connections would relieve the congestion for the majority of other users, the f.c.c. would have the right under this order to determine that such an action is unreasonable, particularly if they are picking winners and losers within those decisions. the real-world impact, it would diminish the company's flexibility in managing their own services. unreasonable discrimination could undermine the provider's ability to manage their networks and guarantee all the users a

high quality of service. companies that build and maintain the networks that make up the internet need the flexibility to manage the exploding demand for services on their networks. regrettably, this order curtails that by establishing that the f. c.c. would have an approval portal that companies would have to pass through just to manage their day-to-day operations. surely, there is a better way. the next provision is that they must justify new specialized services. under the f.c.c.'s orders, providers would now have to come to the f.c.c. in order to offer consumers a new service, something that would be creative and innovative. so instead of offering it and having the competitive advantage from something new, they have to now expose it to all of their competitors by going through a

regulatory hearing at the f.c.c. let me give you an example of what could happen. a hospital might want to work with a provider like verizon to offer a new service for verizon subscribers such as telemedicine that allows patients at home to interact with their doctors via high-definition video and uninterruptible remote medical monitoring. in order to do this, verizon might have to prioritize that telemedicine traffic ahead of regular internet traffic to ensure the appropriate quality of service and particularly if there is a life-threatening situation. the f.c.c. order allows the commission to determine on a case-by-case basis whether such prioritization is actually unreasonable discrimination, because presumably the hospital that is offering the service would be giving better treatment to that telemedicine consumer

than the user's regular traffic. so going through that procs not need and that will ste the innovation that really has marked the internet and the explosion of the opportunities there. the commission says it wants innovation to occur, but the language of the order clearly discourages innovation by forcing companies to pass through a government regulatory turnstile to determine whether a particular service,vative servig new that might be a new competitive advantage, something new for quality of life, whether it should be allowed. this puts the f.c.c. in the position of picking winners and losers among the new innovative services, and it certainly slows down the opportunity to have new things coming on the market in what is usually a fast-paced economic investment.

in some cases this may be enough to discourage providers from entering into special arrangements necessary to offer services like the foregoing. it is cumbersome and, furthermore especially, it is unnecessary. the next provision is to tread lightly -- they say they will tread lightly on wireless now. the order will treat wireless broadband services more lightly than wire line broadband services, at least for now. theorr, which is taken without congressional authority, in my opinion, and certainly the courts will litigate and make decisions, the f.c.c. reserves the right to regulate wireless just as however, wireless providers will have more leeway to innovate and manage their networks, but how much investment are they going to make for the long term if they don't know what the f.c.c. might foresee in the future that needs fixing? even if it isn't apparently

broken. the real-world impact is that wireless is the fastest-growing area of communications markets. the threat that the commission might later apply the prohibitions in its order today to this marketplace is a major er commend the two dissenting members of the commission in the vote today, rob mcdowell and meredith baker. they each did op-eds one in the "wall street journal" and one in "the washington post" about, i would say the common theme that this is a solution where there is no problem. we have an open internet, madam president. we have an internet that is working. it does not need the heavy hand of government. it does not need a government prism upon which to determine if

the internet providers are doing a service. we have a marketplace, and the marketplace is working. this is a time for congress to take a stand. these regulations will raise uncertainty about the methods and practices communications companies may use to manage their networks. heavy-handed regulation threatens investments and innovation in broadband services, placing valuable american jobs at risk. why would this be happening in a recession where we are trying to increase jobs, where we are trying to stop the trajectory of unemployment in our it is time for congress to take a stand. individuals and businesses alike are rightfully concerned about government attempts to seize control of the internet.

senator ensign, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee on commerce -- i am the ranking member of the commerce committee -- together we're going to submit a resolution of disapproval under congressional -- under the congressional review act in an effort to overturn this troubling regulatory overreach by the f.c.c. i think it is time for congress to say that we have not delegated this authority to the f.c.c. the communications act, the f.c.c. tried to do this in another part of the act. they were struck down by the courts. now they have gone to a different interpretation and a different section of the act to y the access to the internet. it is a huge and serious issue that i hope congress will take the reins and say to the f.c.c. if we need regulation in this area, congress will do it.

we are elected, we are accountable. people can vote with what they believe is the right approach by what we do. the f.c.c. is not accountable to the people of our country. yes, they're accountable to the president, and the votes were the presidential appointees of this administration. it is another big government intervention where we do not need to suppress innovation. what we need is to embrace innovation so we can create jobs in this country with the freedom that has marked the economic vitality of america for over 200 years. so, madam president, we will have a resolution of disapproval at the appropriate time in the look forward to working with other members of congress to take the reins in this issue. it is a congressional

responsibility. >> the federal communications commission approved new regulations that prevent internet providers from blocking content and a loss of them to fferent levels of service. the three democrats voted to approve the plan, and both republicans did not approve. this is towo hours. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> these rules are grounded an acceptable practices and tailored to different technologies. they empower consumers and innovators, and help to ensure that the internet continues to flourish as an engine of commerce and civic engagement and provides clarity for broadband providers by insuring that no one controls access to the internet. the cement the credibility of the u.s. as we continue to advocate to let the internet flourish within their own borders. seated with me in the order in which there will present this special counsel in the office of general counsel who will explain how the proposed order is grounded in president and longstanding precedent of openness. the chief of the office of strategic planning and policy analysis, will explain how the order will promote investment. chief of the wireless telecommunications bureau will explain how the rules apply to

mobile broadband services. and the commissions general counsel who will discuss enforcement and the commissions legal authority. the draft before you is the product of extraordinary efforts by bureaus and offices across the commission. time does not permit me to mention by name that dozens of the dedicated staff contributedt reflects an amount of hard work from some very special people who are listed on the screen. >> mr. chairman and commissions, as you know, you long recognize that of intimidation works for innovation and investment to the benefit of consumers, competition, and economic growth. over the course of many years in many contexts, and through a series of decisions over the last five years, the commission has maintained commitment to the openness that facilitated

the birth and the growth of the internet. in 2005, the commission unanimously adopted an internet policy statement that sought to protect their rights of consumers. and the freedom to use the applications, services, and devices of their choosing, subject to reasonable network management. the commission later made these principles and forcible in the context of telephone company mergers. the commission adopted these measures with a shared understanding that is a 30 and statutory obligations extend to ensuring open broadband networks. and it reflected longstanding principles of openness. the principles that are the foundation upon which the internet was killed. all entrepreneurs, investors, and innovators and depend upon these rules, and broadband for riders have committed publicly

to preserving openness. at the same time there have been incidents where broadband providers have blocked or degraded lawful internet traffic without disclosing their actions to consumers. the rules proposed in the order are consistent with the commission's history of protecting openness. >> since 1995, venture capitalists have invested in internet-related industry. the historical openness has made this massive investment possible by eliminating barriers to innovation and giving small businesses access to global markets. many on-line companies have come from ideas to multibillion- dollar companies in a few years, and the zero entrepreneurs who lost these companies did not have to ask anyone's permission. meanwhile, thanks to the ever- growing demand to access, home

broadband has risen from 3% in 2002 over 60% today. this growth has given providers to earn a fair return on billions of dollars they have invested every year in deploying technologies to meet an internet user poser bandwidth and eats. needs.'s online services can present competitive threats to profits in businesses such as voice and video. the possibility that providers could interfere with the flow of internet traffic in a way that violates principles creates unnecessary uncertainty for online businesses. tactics that are in the short- term interests of individual providers could have harmful effects on the sector and the new network management or business practices could become difficult to reverse occurred by codifying -- by codifying the

principles on which most online companies have long operated, the rules we propose would bring increased certainty to this sector of the economy while preserving flexibility broadband providers need to improve their networks. online businesses will all know what to expect under these rules because they reflect the way the internet works now. among the greatest beneficiaries of this increase certain you will be start-ups and small businesses. some of them will be our country's next success stories, creating jobs, and fueling demand for new rounds of innovation in broadband infrastructure. >> there are three basic rules that are grounded in accepted principles as well as the commission's prior decisions. i will describe the proposed rules. the first rule is transparency. broadband providers must disclose their network management practices and the

performance characteristics in terms of the broadband services. this will ensure that consumers and innovators have the information they need to understand capabilities of broadband services while giving providers flexibility in how they deliver that information. the second rule prohibits blocking. providers of fixed broadband internet access service may not block lawful content, publications, services, or non- harmful devices. this is based on the first three policy principles and consolidates three separate roles that were published in the notices proposed rule making in this proceeding. the no blocking roll bars the provider from charging providers for deliveringlications or traffic to or from the broadband providers customers appeared the third rule prohibits unreasonable discrimination. providers of fixed broadband internet access may not unreasonably discriminate in

transmitting it network traffic. there are some forms of differential treatment of traffic that are beneficial in some that are harmful. unreasonable discriminn the non discrimination ruled the commission proposed in the notice. the rules are subject to reasonable that work manage. it is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to a purpose, the architecture and technology of the broadband internet access service. finally, the order acknowledges the category of specialized services which share capacity with broadband services over provider's facilities. there may be benefits for consumers from these services but they present an opportunity for providers to exert greater control over consumer's internet experience. rather than taking action at this time, the commission would

observe market developments to verify that specialized services promote investment, innovation, and competition with of undermining the open internet. >> open this is as important for mobile broadband services as for other platforms. consumers are using mobile broadband at an accelerating pace, and access is becoming increasingly essential to innovation, investment, and freedom of expression. as a result ofcces to diverse applications, content, and services, and has more opportunities to use compatible third-party devices. at the same time, there have been instances of mobile providers blocking third-party applications, and concerns have been raised about an adequate transparency. there are, however, important differences between mobile and fixed broadband. mobile broadband is an earlier

stage platform and it is quickly evolving. the significant and fast-moving change in mobile broad band councils for a measured approach, an approach that we therefore taylor certain of the internet principles to mobile broadband, requiring compliance with the transparency role in the basic no blocking role. first, the transparency role directsble to mobile mobile broadband providers to disclose their third-party devise an application certification procedures and explain criteria for any restrictions on use of their networks. second, the order establishes that mobile broadband providers may not block access to waufle web sites. the role enables consumers to access content of their choosing, while allowing mobile providers to manage their networks. the order prohibits of fraud can providers from blocking ads that compete with their voice and

video from blocking ads to compete with their voice and video services. the order specifies that the no blocking role does not generally applied to mobile broadband the providers engaged in the operation of app stores. as with the rules -- they provide mobile providers to engage in network manageable. -- management. we will continue to monitor and solicit input including the effects of the rules and thecon. >> it encourages private resolution about internet openness and establishes enforcement for situations where private resolution is not possible. consumers can submit in formal complaints, using the website without a filing fee. the broad band provider -- any

person may file a formal complaint alleging under the internet openness rules. the commission has the option of initiating investigations and enforcement action. i will turn to the commission's legal authority now. as the supreme court said, congress gave the commission a mandate -- to enforce the rules. the open internet world's response to that challenge. the commission has statutory authority to adopt them. section 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996 a direct the commission to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all americans carry the history of the act, commission president and case law, are all consistent with the view that such a 706 directs the commission to take actions that

involve interstate communication by wire or radio, incurred broadband for all americans, and promote local communication competition and remove barriers to investment. the rules meet all three requirements. the commission is charged with protecting competition. it has authority to ensure that over the top internet voice services can develop with a rival -- as a rival to phone services. the commission will safeguard interconnection between telephone customers and voice users. the commission's authority flows from the ability to oversee advanced video. blocking , limits the ability of television radiobroadcasting to offer their services over the internet. it depends on the internet to complement their video programming services. interference with internet

delivery limits their ability to compete with -- compete with cable and provide prescription services usere them as licenses. the commission must place conditions on licenses. in short, unication which is the mission congress gave this commission. >> as you have heard, this order would insure the continued openness of the internet we enjoy today and would promote the interests of consumers, investors, providers, and innovators with three basic rules grounded in the commission's existing legal authority. for all the reasons we have given, we recommend you adopt this item and we request editorial privileges. thank you. >> thanks to each of you and all the others who worked on this for your incredibly hard and excellent work. let's proceed to comment from the bench. >> thank you. i hope in years to come enti

all-powerful gatekeeper control. on numerous fronts, the commission is taking strides forward. and others, i pray that our sometimenot born on openness, it thrived on openness, and it will achieve its full potential only through continued openness. it is my fervent desire that with this order will start to write the next chapter and a great internet success story, one of continued openness, innovation without needing to seek permission from anyone, in expanded access for all americans. we cannot afford allowing special interests to relegate the awesome opportunity created -- and create a power of the open internet in the sad history of what might have been. permitting a gigantic

corporations or providers to exercise and better control over american access to the internet not only creates a risk to technological innovation and economic growth, but it poses a threat to freedom of speech and to the future of our democracy. increasingly, our national conversation, our source for news, our knowledge of one another will depend upon the internet. our future town square will be paved with broad bandre it must be successful -- accessible to all. as i have long argued and as many students of the medium have written, previous telecommunications and media technologies also conceived and open this eventually fell victim to consolidate its control by a few powerful interests, fell victim to speculative mania and by investors.

we are ed to learn from history. too often, we do not. increasingly, the private interests to control our 21st century in frformation infrastructure. in 2003, i cautioned, somewhat dramatically perhaps, but not in accurately, that the internet may be dying because interest interest were positioning themselves to control the internet's chokepoints. i called for clear rules to maintain openness and freedom on the internet and to fight discrimination over ideas and content and technologies. to go year to lawful content. convince my colleagues to access one applications -- run

applications and services, connect devices to the internet, and enjoyed the benefits of competition. at last, we adopt some concrete rules to prevent gatekeeper's from circumventing and stifling innovation, investment, and job creation. all we need to do is look at our history at the fcc as a cautionary tale. it was not all that long ago that one network, at&t, ran at the whole show. at&t had the power to decide of the network would be used. when innovators showed up at the door with new technologies, they were greeted with a courteous but always quick "go away." for a long time, the sec supported this type of network. in fact, served as its protector. it was thought that only too

comprehensive control by a single company could the quality and safety and the scale economies of the network be guaranteed. bigger was better, and uniformity and stability were thought to be worth the price -- worth the price. all of this began to change the late960' carter electronics corp. developed a device that connected mobile radiotelephone services to the network. this device called the carter phone had a cradle which handset was placed. it converted a voice signals to radio without the need for a direct electrical connection. but the entrenched would claim that allowing thisor iumbent did not build it, did not sell it, and did not control it. sound familiar? over the complaint of a powerful special interest, the commission worked up enough courage to change tack, stand up to the

network gatekeeper and do the right thing -- requiring the network operator to permit attachment of the new application to the existing network. in spite of all of the alarm bells that this decision meant the end of network quality and the end of reliable service, just the opposite came to pass. the idea of having a network that could not discriminate against innovators finally began to break the chokehold that the gatekeeper had on the system. years after the carter phoned decision as we entered the early days of the internet age, the commission reaffirmed its policy of openness by protecting freedom on the access layer and the architectural layer of the internet. in the computer inquiries, earlier commissions mandated common carriers used access the internet must offer those pipes and nondiscriminatory terms. 3 visit -- to these decisions,

the commission fostered competition. congress moved in the telecommunications act of 1996 to protect the architectural later. they said that local telephone companies with chokepoints would have to unbundle their transmission networks. sadly, these policies were in fairly short order decimated by the two commissions that served year between 2001 and 2009. over -- over objections and those of my colleague, the sec took american consumers on a dangerous deregulatory ride, moving the transmission component of broadband outside of the framework congress created to apply to telecommunications carriers. when those commissions stopped treating advanced telecommunications as telecommunications, they relegated american competitiveness to the sidelines.

i do not like to see my country on the sidelines. neither do most americans. remember, this was a major flip- flop from the of requiring nondiscrimination in our communications networks. because of the errors of those previous commissions, the court told us that the legal framework upon which the ff build -- the fcc build its case against comcast was inadequates. . the fcc has found itself adrift since then. today, we finally tried to patch the hole left by the comcast decision by adopting certain rules to preserve open this. we do not anger ourselves on what i believe to be the best legal framework. nor every crafted roles as strong as i would like.

but with hoped we would move to full throttle to restore the policies that worked in the past. i wanted to put those eight years of aberration totally behind us. so i pushed as hard as i could to get broadband telecommunications backward along under title ii, where hard won, consumer friendly protections that have been built up over many years would provide a framework under which businesses could do its job of managing this great communications enterprise, making handsome profits in the process, while giving them certainty and giving consumers protections they need and deserve. i wanted to go back to that balance the act that had worked for so many years of for the common good. so, yes, i continue to believe

that a reassertion of our authority it would have provided the surest foundation for commission action. i note with interest that the commission's reclassification docket will remain open. there is more i would like in this order. i would prefer a general and to discourage broadband providers from engaging in pay for priority, prioritizing the traffic of those with deep pockets and consign the rest of us to a slow or internet. i believe we should have done more to strip locals from the definition of a broad band access service to perfect -- prevent companies falsely claiming they are broad ban companies from slipping through. we made improvements on the definition, but i have some worries. i argued for parity between fixed and mobile. after all, the internet is the internet no matter how y it, anf citizens going mobile for their

internet and the on to p entrepreneurs creating content and services should have the same freedoms. i had other areas of concerns about something less than a bright line on discrimination rule, keeping a reasonable network management within bounds and the substitution of monitoring for this for it -- the purposes of enforcement in many areas. actionbook, today's should have gone further, going as far as i would've liked was not in the cards. the easier course for me at that point would of been dissent, and i consider that very, very seriously. but it became ever more clear to me that without action today the wheels of network neutrality would grind to a screeching halt for at least the next two years. so, reserving theigintensive dil

interested parties about how we might be able to do something to ensure the continued openness of the internet and to put consumers, not big phone or cable, in control of our on-line experiences. in the end, i hoped,, but more than some people expected. the language in the order that we will hopefully approved to date moves the item from unacceptable to something in which i can concur. that is what i intend to do. among the many improvements to the order we achieved, we conclude that pay forur explicie text of the definition of broadband internet access to close the loophole that while protecting residential customers would have jeopardized the open internet rights of sma libraries. we insisted on providing greater context so that companies cannot

easily evade open internet protections. we expanded our transparency to give the consumers they need -- the information they need to make a choice by requiring disclosure on the broad band provider's website and at the point of sale. we put